tis *dead, but can't be marked as such. Fu siftbot!

Only published or personal queue videos may be flagged dead - ignoring dead request by demon_ix.

If the taxpayers of Il. don't give a fuck, why should some talk show host?

Not dead - Works perfectly fine...
>> ^demon_ix:

tis dead, but can't be marked as such. Fu siftbot!

>> ^longde:

If the taxpayers of Il. don't give a fuck, why should some talk show host?


<---taxpayer who gives a fuck

Sigh. I'm all for separation of church and state, but once again, the atheist comes off as the douchebag here. If it brings in tourists and it has other uses than for just faith, then I'm fine with it being repaired by the state. Of all the atrocities the church has committed over history, building cross-shaped buildings is probably amongst the least of them. Why don't you focus on the whole priests molesting kids thing instead of cross-shaped storage buildings that bring in tourists and much needed revenue.

Seriously. Atheists? You need get some perspective here and come up with a better way to get your message across than ridiculous lawsuits like this and pick your battles a little better.

It's not about being pompus, or arrogant, government money legally can't be used to endorse any particular religious viewpoint.

What you're saying about tourism and such is a red herring since churches and church functions in general promote the state's agendas in a way and those institutions, I would assume you'd agree, can not be supported by the state regardless of the positive benefits of having them within said state.

*quality atheist discussion inc

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

The state cannot endorse religion. That "douchebag" atheist has a good case and I'm extremely glad he is taking this issue on. Religion needs to be challenged by secular law every time it oversteps. Whether it oversteps by encroaching on the separation of church and state or protecting pedophile priests, religion must be consistently be held to secular laws.

Says "video is not available" for me. Some kind of region protection?

Couldn't have said it any better.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

It's not about being pompus, or arrogant, government money legally can't be used to endorse any particular religious viewpoint.
What you're saying about tourism and such is a red herring since churches and church functions in general promote the state's agendas in a way and those institutions, I would assume you'd agree, can not be supported by the state regardless of the positive benefits of having them within said state.
quality atheist discussion inc


>> ^The_Ettin:

The state cannot endorse religion. That "douchebag" atheist has a good case and I'm extremely glad he is taking this issue on. Religion needs to be challenged by secular law every time it oversteps. Whether it oversteps by encroaching on the separation of church and state or protecting pedophile priests, religion must be consistently be held to secular laws.

Where is this overstepping that you speak of? The building is already there so there is no endorsement of religion. The building has a number of secular reasons to exist too. If the money was being used to build another cross-shaped building, i'd be against it, but that's not happening here. The money is just upkeep to fix an existing building.

If they don't fix it, then they'll have to tear it down. that costs money too. You're too obsessed with the shape of the building and not about what it's actually used for.

Again, there are much better, less dickish, ways to fight religion. This is the equivalent of nitpicking and there are much bigger fish to fry and your energy would be better spent elsewhere.

>> ^VoodooV:

Where is this overstepping that you speak of? The building is already there so there is no endorsement of religion. The building has a number of secular reasons to exist too. If the money was being used to build another cross-shaped building, i'd be against it, but that's not happening here. The money is just upkeep to fix an existing building.
If they don't fix it, then they'll have to tear it down. that costs money too. You're too obsessed with the shape of the building and not about what it's actually used for.
Again, there are much better, less dickish, ways to fight religion. This is the equivalent of nitpicking and there are much bigger fish to fry and your energy would be better spent elsewhere.


Government money spent on a symbol of religion? It violates the Establishment Clause. Nitpicking? Hardly. Allowing one group to do it sets precedence for other groups to do it, and it allows the government to passively promote one creed over another.

Now you'll say what law did they write that favored one over the other. I'll say it wasn't a law that they wrote it was the dispensation of taxpayer money to favor a religious symbol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

When I can put the symbol of my religion - a 60 foot wooden cock - on the mountain, they can put their cross there too.


"This video is not available." *dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by gwiz665.

*notdead

As of 13:13 Eastern Standard Time I was able to view the video.

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by NordlichReiter.

Wrong video.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Stingray.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by geo321.

*backup

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by geo321.

Replaced video embed code with backup #2399 (supplied by member geo321) - embed replaced by member geo321.